Tuesday, December 29, 2015

Hindsight note to failed presidential campaign strategists: If
you didn’t prepare your pre-Iowa/New Hampshire strategy
with your candidate primarily employing the media as the
overture to your campaign, you didn’t have a chance.

There are three stages of a presidential election. The first has
an indefinite beginning date. It ends in the December prior
to the election year about a month before the Iowa caucus.
The second stage is the caucus/primary season itself. It goes
from January to June, The third stage is the general election. It
goes from the party nominating conventions until election day
in November. While there are many factors is the last two
stages, the major factor is the voters themselves. The first stage,
however, almost ignores the voters. It is managed, displayed,
defined, analyzed and concluded by the media.

If anyone doubts this assertion, I simply point out the clear and
inescapable fact of the first stage of the 2016 cycle just concluded.
Regardless of their experience, resumes, executive abilities or
native intelligence, the most successful figures in both parties
were those who spoke and acted well in and through the media.

Without question, the most successful figure of stage one in 2016
was Donald Trump. Without question, he was the candidate who
most effectively used the media. On the Democratic side, only
Bernie Sanders showed media acuity. He is not leading in the polls,
but he continues to survive heading into stage two against the
most overwhelming Democratic frontrunner in memory. Hillary
Clinton is that frontrunner, and if she had even a modicum of
media skills, she would be the only Democratic candidate left in
the race. In fact, the Clinton campaign has compulsively tried to
hide their candidate from full media view.

On the Republican side, the only candidates left who have a serious
chance to win, other than Mr. Trump, are candidates with
demonstrated media skills, including Chris Christie, Marco Rubio,
and Ted Cruz. Jeb Bush is technically still in the race because of his
name recognition, campaign cash and organizational resources. If
he could have matched his media skills with these resources, he
would be the frontrunner today, Donald Trump notwithstanding.
Two other Republicans, Carly Fiorina and John Kasich, are also
still viable (but barely); yet only Mrs. Fiorina has demonstrated
good media skills in stage one.

Fortunately for the republic, the media plays only a subordinate
role in stages two and three. For this reason, Mr. Bush does still have
a chance to win, however unlikely. For this reason, Mr. Trump is
already fading from his “media lead” of the past several months.
National polls still have him in front, but state polls already have him
behind or narrowly leading. Mr. Cruz is not only media savvy, he is
very smart. But his appeal, by his own design, has been to only one
segment of his party’s voter base. This makes his quest much more
problematic than it would have been if he had directed his skills to a
broader GOP base.

This leaves Mr. Christie and Mr. Rubio. Each are excellent debaters,
speakers and campaigners. Mr. Christie is perhaps more
experienced, but Mr. Rubio is more glamorous and younger. They
have survived stage one, although neither is a clear frontrunner.
In New Hampshire, Mr. Christie has demonstrated that where he
campaigns in person he does very, very well. Mr. Rubio currently
appears ahead of Mr. Christie in most credible polls, but stage two
is only beginning.

Stage three is too far away to discuss thoughtfully, but we can
discuss stage two as hand-to-hand combat begins in Iowa and New
Hampshire. Mr. Trump, even though he is much less prepared
for the competition in stage two, will not disappear. He has skills and
resources yet to play. I have suggested previously that no presumptive
nominee will likely appear until after Super Tuesday, perhaps not
until May or June. Mrs. Fiorina and Mr. Kasich might surprise in
stage two, but if not, either could reappear as a vice presidential
nominee. Mr. Bush could have an unlikely surprise political epiphany
in stage two. Nothing is decided.

What is decided, however, is perhaps advice to those men and
women now (or later) contemplating a future presidential run.
To wit, don’t consider the race for the nation’s highest office unless
you are prepared to employ, exploit and, yes, outwit the media
institutions which essentially manage and control stage one of an
American presidential campaign. The media, as I have pointed out
is far from dominant in stages two and three, but a candidate must
run the media gauntlet with some success in stage one to get to these
quarterfinals and semifinals and to election day itself.

Sunday, December 27, 2015

As 2015 concludes, and the 2016 presidential election cyclecommences with its first primary and caucus voting, it mightbe useful to remember how much a vital ritual the democratic manner of choosing a new president has become.

To begin with, it is necessary to recall the first U.S. president,“the indispensable American politician,” George Washington.A Virginia colonial aristocrat, initially a British army majorwho at 21 was sent to spy on the French forts in western Pennsylvania, Washington, through a subsequent life of soldiering and running his family estate at Mount Vernon, established a new principle in the political vocabulary of national states in western civilization of the late 18th century.

He was, of course, not alone is establishing the unprecedentedAmerican republic. There was a remarkable team of colleaguesthat came together from the thirteen original colonies in the “new world” of the North American continent. Some of them,including Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson and AlexanderHamilton, were perhaps intellectually “smarter” and bettereducated than Washington, but none of them were superior incharacter.

There was also “something in the air” in the 1770s, not only inthe British colonies of North America, but in Europe as well, andby the end of that century, an unquenchable turmoil and upheaval of the feudal order of the previous millenium was underway.It continues to this day.

The original notion of most of the founders was for GeneralWashington, the military leader of the American revolution, tobecome king of the United States, Three times he refused thisopportunity. Finally, after an unworkable “Confederation” was no longer tenable, and a constitutional convention created anelected presidency that was to be renewed every four years,Washington acquiesced to return to Philadelphia and lead thenew nation. After eight years, Washington made the unexpectedand “indispensable” decision to retire to Mount Vernon. During his presidency there were no political parties, but in the resultingcontests for his successor in 1796, 1800 and 1804, the candidatesran not only with contrasting personalities, but with emerging contrasts in political philosophies as well.

It was not until the middle of the 19th century that our “modern”political parties appeared, and not until the mid-20th century thatthe current ritualized forms of the presidential election wereestablished. The coming of universal suffrage enabling all adultcitizens to vote, modern communications and advanced transportation technology have each altered presidentialcampaign strategies, but the ritual format remains a constant.

The president of the United States serves two general functions.First, he or she is the CEO of the executive branch and the commander-in-chief of the armed forces. Second, he or she isthe one figure who stands at the “bully pulpit, speaking daily toand for the nation. These are essentially the same functions andduties that George Washington assumed on March 4, 1789.

Since that time, a few remarkable men, many exceptional men, and a few disappointing men have taken the presidential oath. The times have obviously changed, and the nation incredibly so, but it is a singular testament to the authors of the Constitution, and to the irreplaceable George Washington, that the character and role of the office remains, as does the extraordinary ritual of renewing it.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Copyright (c) 2015 by Barry Casselman. All right reserved.

Of course, without any voting yet taking place, this list mightchange by a name or two, but it has become clearer whichaspirants have what it takes to vie seriously in 2016.

I do not include Ben Carson, although he will almost certainlyqualify for the next main GOP debate on January 15. CarlyFiorina and John Kasich, each for different reasons, remainsignificant vice presidential candidates. Rand Paul has said that if he is not included in the next main debate, he willrefuse to participate in the second tier debate, a petulancethat spells the end of his campaign.

The other candidates, most of whom have had good politicalexperience and past high office, so far are not measuring up onthe campaign trail.

I base this assessment only partially on the opinion polls sofar, most of which have been evaluated as misleading, poorlytaken, and woefully inadequate about measuring what “likelyvoters” will do in upcoming primaries and caucuses.

I repeat, without any real votes, this assessment is ultimatelyguesswork, but I do think we have seen enough of the candidatesto date to make a list of finalists.

The next GOP debate will be on January 15. It is likely to be
even more confrontive than the earlier ones. It will be followed
by the first voting Iowa.

This does not mean that the non-finalists will all drop out soon.Most, in all likelihood, will remain in the race until Iowa andNew Hampshire. But going to Super Tuesday on March 1, a
candidate will need campaign funds and good news to keep going.

Saturday, December 19, 2015

CAN JEB MAKE A COMEBACK?
Jeb Bush’s debate performance in Las Vegas was quite
significantly improved over his earlier appearances, and
this has many, especially his supporters, wondering whether
he can turn his campaign around in time for the caucuses
and primaries early next year. Some observers, especially
those who do not favor his candidacy, are suggesting it is
too late, but considering the hefty campaign funds he has
raised, his organization already active in many states, and
his name recognition, it might be just a bit too soon to write
him off. He shares some of his base with supporters of
Marco Rubio and Chris Christie, both of whom are
currently getting stronger. This makes his comeback more
problematic.

IS THE DEMOCRATIC CONTEST OVER?
When Vice President Joe Biden declined to run for president
in 2016, the national punditry declared the race for next
year’s Democratic nomination over, saying that Hillary
Clinton had the nomination locked up. At that point, Mrs.
had only two opponents, and it was decided by the punditry
that Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders could not win (even
though he then led, and still does lead, Mrs. Clinton in New
Hampshire). If the national and state polls are to be believed,
the former secretary of state has a large lead in most areas,
although her overall numbers are remarkably weak when
compared with most other nomination frontrunners in modern
times. Controversy continues to dog Mrs. Clinton who has
high negatives, and so far seems not to have inspired much
enthusiasm in her party’s grass roots, other than with older
liberal women. On paper, conventional wisdom seems to be
correct. Although Mr. Sanders continues to run well in the
party's left base, and is expected to win New Hampshire , there
is no evidence yet that he can win anywhere else. Former
Maryland Governor Martin O'Malley has been ignored by the
party's grass roots throughout the campaign so far. Mrs. Clinton
leads by a big margin in Iowa, although she is barely above
50% in most polls in this caucus state where only a small
percentage of eligible voters take part in the caucus. Only a
last-minute surge by Mr. Sanders or Mr. O'Malley, or more
political problems for Mrs. Clinton, would seem able to change
the outcome in this race, but this seems to be a year when
surprises can happen.

THIRD PARTY CANDIDATES UNLIKELY IN 2016
With Donald Trump’s recent reiteration of his earlier pledge not
to run as a third-party candidate in 2016, it would appear that
2015 will be a two-person contest in November. Only former
Democratic Senator Jim Webb of Virginia has even hinted they
would consider running as an independent next year, but so far
this seems unlikely.

REMEMBER THE FINAL PRIMARIES;DO THE MATH
At the Republican national convention next year, the presidential
nomination will be made by 560 at-large delegates and 1305
delegates chosen by GOP voters in state primaries and caucuses.
While most attention now is on the early four states plus the 11
states of Super Tuesday, it is very important not to forget the
majority of states which choose their delegates mostly on a
winner-take-all basis after March 1. In particular, I call attention
to Michigan (42 delegates) on March 8; Illinois (54 delegates) and
Ohio (48 delegates) on March 15; New York (81) delegates on
April 19; Pennsylvania (54 delegates) on April 26; and California
(159 delegates) and New Jersey (36 delegates) on June 7. These
states alone, plus other northeastern and far west states, supply
more than one-third of the total elected and at-large delegates. In
recent cycles, the nomination tended to be clinched in the early
primaries, and the later primaries were anti-climactic. It would
appear, however, that in 2016 this might not be the case. Many
of the original 18 major candidates will likely be withdrawn by
March 1, but Marco Rubio, Chris Christie, Ted Cruz, Jeb Bush,
Donald Trump, and possibly John Kasich and one or more
other candidates could still be competing after Super Tuesday,
each with a number of delegates. Most of the more conservative
southern primaries will have taken place by then, and more
moderate conservative primaries in the far west and the
northeast will be ahead. Ted Cruz might then do well in
midwestern primaries and caucuses, and Chris Christie
might do well in far western and northeastern primaries. Jeb
Bush and John Kasich also could do well in the later events.
As in the Democratic nomination contest of 2008, the 2016 race
might be decided at the very end of the voting, and even result
in a very rare contested convention. Unless, one candidate wins
very decisively in the traditional First Four and Super Tuesday
elections, a quite non-traditional, protracted contest could well
happen in April, May and early June. Just do the math.

Thursday, December 17, 2015

Donald Trump’s real predecessor in American history
was not P.T. Barnum, as some have suggested, but someone
in the same line of work who also lived in the mid-19th
century, and became a household word.

Dan Rice was born Daniel Maclaren in New York City in
1823. He became one of the earliest American clowns, and
through a series of entertainment jobs created the first true
American circus. He is considered the father not only of the
circus, but of vaudeville. He was the first U.S. megastar of
pop culture, and prior to the U.S. Civil War was probably the
most well-known person in the country. Mark Twain and
Walt Whitman were among his biggest fans. He created
“the greatest show on earth” before his later rival P.T.
Barnum got into the circus business. He is considered the
model for the iconic figure of Uncle Sam. Photographs of
Rice how him to be the spitting image of the early Uncle
Sam cartoons. By 1867, he was so famous that he ran for
president. The 1872 Democratic nomination went to his
friend Horace Greeley.

(Coincidentally, Greeley had lived as a young man in Erie, PA
where he held his first job as a reporter. Dan Rice, years later,
settled his circus in its winter quarters in Girard, a suburb of
Erie where “Dan Rice Days” are still observed every year.)

In many ways, Dan Rice created modern public relations as
well. An inveterate self-promoter, his personality reached into
numerous aspects of early American life. In fashion, he
popularized “French cuffs” in the U.S. He was not only a clown
and circus impresario, he was an actor, director, strong man,
animal trainer, professional dancer and song writer. He is the
origin of several phrases which survive to this day, including
“one horse show,” “Hey, Rube!” and the political term “getting
on the bandwagon” (the latter from his invitation to 1848
presidential candidate Zachary Taylor to appear on one of
his circus wagons).

Rice ran for U.S congress, senate and finally president ---
although he withdrew from each of these races before the
voting began. In 1867, when he ran for president, he was only
44 years old, but he was at the height of his fame. By the late
1870s, changes in the traveling circus, led by Barnum and
others, caused a decline in Rice’s fortune and popularity.
He died in New Jersey in 1900, virtually penniless and
forgotten.

Dan Rice was not only the first great American cultural
promoter and innovator, but a man of remarkable talents.
He was, in fact, the first true American pop culture celebrity
who became eventually involved, albeit unsuccessfully, in
politics. There have been figures like him ever since, not
only from entertainment, but from sports, films, business
and other walks of U.S. life.

Donald Trump is the latest version of this pop culture
phenomenon. Most, like Dan Rice, flare into fame and then
end up forgotten. A few, most notably Ronald Reagan,
emerge from pop culture into significant success and impact
in American politics.

It will be interesting to observe in the coming months which
will be the outcome for Donald Trump.

Tuesday, December 15, 2015

As we observe another presidential debate, we can ask what
it is these televised spectacles tell us and show us about the
candidates.

I suggest that the debates don’t necessarily inform us
thoroughly about how a candidate would perform as president,
nor do they completely inform us abut the knowledge and
experience of the candidates. Their record in previous office or
work, and their resumes probably tell us more about these
matters.

The debates also don’t tell us much about the kind of persons
these candidates would gather to their administration or the
manner in which they take counsel from others.

What the debates do tell us is something of how each candidate
feels about himself or herself, their ability to take command,
and their skill in acting under stress. While I note that these are
not the only qualities voters need to assess in deciding whom to
support for president, they are important factors in being an
effective chief executive and commander in chief.

The debates are just one part of the presidential campaign
process, and performance in them, either good or bad, can be
critical to the outcome of the contest, especially for the
party nomination. In an era, of hyper-mass communication,
the internet, social media and round-the-clock news, the debates
have become a primary interface between voter and candidate.

As we go into the new year, and the earliest caucus and primary
voting, however, campaign organization, strategy and finances
become increasingly significant, particularly in a cycle such as
this one which has so many well-known competitors for the
political prize.

In an attempt to be fair, those conducting the Republican
debates have from the outset held two debates, one for
candidates higher in the polls and one for those with lower
poll numbers. As the next level of the campaign begins,
however, it would seem appropriate to have just one debate
with an appropriate standard for participation.

The time for each major party to decide who will lead their
national ticket in November, 2016 is now approaching. The
debates have been, and will continue to be, very important,
but a larger picture of the ability and the personality of each
candidate now takes on a greater significance, and with each
additional debate, voters will need to see that bigger picture
forming in front of them with more clarity. Earlier impressions
now undergo a new and greater scrutiny. It is well-known that
voting decisions themselves often occur late in the process,
perhaps only days before the voting itself.

The latest Republican debate, I think, has narrowed the fieldde facto a month before the first actual voting in the Iowa
Caucus. Donald Trump continues to lead in the national
generic polls, but much more credible polls from individual
states indicate his lead might be an illusion. Once again in
the debates, his familiarity with domestic and foreign policy
issues seemed slight juxtaposed next to most of his rivals.
Jeb Bush for the first time successfully stood up to Trump,
and seemed through most of the debate evening to be a major
player in the contest, He, along with Chris Christie, Ted Cruz
and Marco Rubio seemed to be the night's biggest winners.
Carly Fiorina and John Kasich seemed to hold their own, but
each primarily increased their chances to be the party's vice
presidential choice. Trump and Ben Carson seemed out of their
element. Rand Paul, who barely made the main debate stage this
time, was articulate about many issues, but his views do not
appear to be shared by most GOP voters, much less his rivals
on the debate stage. This might have been his last 2016 debate
appearance.

It's clearly time to cancel the second debate format, and to
schedule, in the remaining debates, only one event with
appropriate and increased standards for participation.

Governor Christie, who has made some of the most dramatic
recent gains in the presidential field, particularly in New
Hampshire, now needs to increase his standing in other states,
including Iowa and South Carolina, as well as some of the
Super Tuesday states, if he is to maintain momentum going
into the actual voting in the new year.

Sunday, December 13, 2015

For more than a year, I have been suggesting in print andon the air that the Republican candidate to watch in 2016was New Jersey Governor Chris Christie. I wasn’t the onlyone to say this, but I was one of the very, very few nationaljournalists to consistently predict that he would re-emerge in the presidential campaign after the notorious “bridge scandal”seemed to derail his presidential ambitions.

I did not ever say he would be the nominee, but I have intuitively felt that his unquestionable (though sometimescontroversial) communication skills, combined with hispolitical resume, would make him a finalist in the contest onceit was underway in January, 2016.

For several months, his poll numbers have drifted in the very low single digits and, except for noteworthy performances inthe television debates so far, he has lingered in the backgroundwhile Donald Trump, Ben Carson, Carly Fiorina, Jeb Bush,Marco Rubio, John Kasich and Ted Cruz received the most headlines and attention.

Presidential politics is primarily about timing, assuming that acandidate has the basic skills, experience and temperament tobe president. Some describe this factor as “luck,” but I think it is more a sense of timing, and knowing when and where to makea successful move in the game.

While I have received “rolling eyes” from even some of my
most faithful and supportive readers during these months when
Mr. Christie remained clearly in the background, I knew frommany years of writing about presidential politics (since 1972)that the temporary emergence and flare-ups of othercandidates was a gift to the Christie campaign. That’s becauseit is always important to make the most significant moves onlywhen the actual voting begins.

Now, in mid-December, the real campaigns in Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina (where the earliest voting willtake place) are beginning in earnest. While early frontrunnersDonald Trump and Ben Carson were exploiting the free mediaphase of the presidential pre-campaign, Chris Christie wentto New Hampshire and campaigned the only way to be successful in that first primary state --- hand to hand, villageto village, town meeting to town meeting.

And what was the result? Today, Governor Christie stands insecond place in New Hampshire, having dramatically risen from 1% to low double digits. He has been endorsed the leading and most influential newspaper in the state. He has restored himself to the main debate stage (after being relegated to the minor one where he stole the show). His strategy in New Hampshire is now being repeated in Iowa, but it is New Hampshire where has needed to shine all along.

After New Hampshire and Iowa, it is not clear that Mr. Christiewill emerge, along with Florida Senator Marco Rubio and(possibly) Texas Senator Ted Cruz to grapple for the nomination.It is also not clear when or if Donald Trump will continue to leadthe pack or fade, as Ben Carson and others have.

This is a most unusual presidential cycle so far. Anything canhappen. But, for now. Chris Christie is on the move.

Thursday, December 10, 2015

After the large number of Republican presidential debates in
2012, and the subsequent loss of the election by the GOP
nominee, it was widely assumed there had been too many
debates. It became a commonplace that the conservative
party would reduce the number of debates dramatically in
2015-16 to avoid the “overexposure” of 2011-12.

This was, in fact, done. Only 5 debates were sanctioned
for this cycle before January 1, 2016.

It turns out that this was a classic case of fixing a past mistake,
without anticipating new circumstances.

The new circumstances included the “underexposure” of at
least one candidate who effectively has used the “free media”
period of the campaign (the period prior to January, 2016).
Businessman Donald Trump’s poll numbers have repeatedly
gone down immediately after most of the debates so far, but
rebound in the usually month-long intervals between debates.
In that interval, Mr. Trump makes statements which apparently
shock and dismay most of his opponents, the GOP establishment,
as well as provide the media (most of whom oppose him) with
daily fodder. Lots of folks, but not necessarily voters, however,
either think they agree with Mr. Trump or find him sufficiently
refreshing to choose him in the polls or show up at his rallies.

Then there is another televised debate, and Mr. Trump is shown
to be lacking in information and experience, especially when
compared with some of his rivals. The first “anti-Trump” was
Carly Fiorina, but she has not yet managed to catch on. Then it
was Ben Carson, but he has already faded. Then it was John
Kasich, but he produced a backlash. Then Jeb Bush joined the
anti-Trump fray, but he, too, has failed to gain support.

The GOP has now scheduled an additional debate as the voting
begins next year, but I don’t think this tactic alone will work. One
of the remaining “major” candidates will have to take on Mr.
Trump, and be seen by GOP voters as their better choice to be the
conservative nominee.

In spite of the numerous candidates remaining in the GOP field, it
would appear now that there are three who might most successfully
turn the nomination contest around and in their favor. They include
Florida Senator Marco Rubio, New Jersey Governor Chris Christie
and Texas Senator Ted Cruz. Each of them has demonstrated
debating skills, and has a serious resume with political experience.
Of course, one of the other candidates could suddenly rise and win
the nomination, especially if no one clinches the nomination before
the GOP convention, but if the “Trump phenomenon” is to be
stopped, it seems that one of those three will have to do it. Each of
them is currently rising in various polls --- Mr. Rubio in many states,
Mr, Christie in New Hampshire, and Mr. Cruz in Iowa.

There are those who argue that the “Trump phenomenon” is an
illusion, a visceral response by those polled to his blunt talk and
defiance of political correctness. When the actual voting begins,
this argument continues, real voters will choose someone else.
Perhaps this is so, it’s a reasonable argument, and yet Mr. Trump,
only facing his rivals once a month in debate, has contradicted it
for some time, and remains apparently well ahead of the pack.

It would seem that if Mr. Rubio, Mr. Christie or Mr. Cruz can now
overcome Mr. Trump, they will --- out of sheer gratitude ---
overcome some hurdles now put in their way by many grass roots
voters and in the Republican establishment. Mr. Cruz perhaps has
the hardest task, having made his appeal so far mainly to only one
wing of the party.

Recently, Mr. Trump has revived his “threat” to run as an
independent candidate in November if he does not feel
“well-treated” by the Republican Party. On paper, it seems a
real threat. But as my friend Nathan Gonzalez of The RothenbergGonzalez Report has written, this might be an empty threat of a
“sore loser” who would likely only receive a small percentage of
the vote in November and be humiliated by it.

Donald Trump is in the race to be the Republican nominee for
president, He has done remarkably well so far, but not a single
vote has been counted, and many primaries and caucuses are
ahead.

The Democrats can still win the presidency again in 2016. If the
Republicans want to reclaim the White House, hard work, good
strategies and above all, cool heads are needed in the days
coming.

Tuesday, December 8, 2015

I don’t want to overdo the parallels, but there is now in2015 a certain “channeling” another time in worldhistory, an average man’s lifetime ago, that is, in the mid-to-late 1930s when world consciousness wasbeginning to sense an imminent, sudden and tremendous alteration in global human history.

In 1937, the cataclysmic traumas of World War I were still fresh. The world powers at the time, thelargest nations of Europe, were in definite, if notfully realized, decline. Two new political forms of violent “direct action,” totalitarian fascism and totalitarian communism, were recently gestated and suddenly onthe rise.

Technology, too, had also upended 19th centuryconsciousness, itself disrupted by the industrial revolution,and had accelerated the formation of mass urban societies,especially in the developing worlds of Europe, North America, and parts of Asia. The introduction of thetelegraph, mid-19th century, was followed in the late 19thcentury by the telephone. In the post-World War I era,radio and motion pictures had dramatically alteredcommunications worldwide.

The United States of America, then only 150 years old,had been the first modern democratic republic, and anearly growing industrial force, but only after World War Iwas it more obviously going to be a major world power.In 1937, its wartime prowess of 1918 had been disbanded,and the nation had suffered an almost decade-longeconomic depression, circumstances which it shared withmost of the then developing industrial world.

This economic tribulation, and its accompanying unemployment and suffering among the masses of population, combined with aftershocks of the world warwhich had not really ended, led to disturbances in almostall nations, and seemingly incoherent assaults on personaland national conduct. Nazism, fascism and communismtook hold increasingly in a decadent Europe. Religious andethnic prejudices, the seeds of which had been plantedcenturies before, now bloomed in dark and violent colors.The value of a human life, which had escalated in the idealism and humanism of earlier modern culture was suddenly devalued like an old currency deemed worthless.

But in 1937, few shots had yet been fired. The huge empire which the Archduke Franz Ferdinand was scheduled to inherit before that summer day in Sarajevo was now a tinyhapless nation sandwiched between the awakeningtotalitarian forces that would soon overtake most of thecivilized world. Americans and Canadians read almostincredible reports of disruptive and unspeakable events across the ocean.

It was a year of willful suspension in the minds of mostAmericans. World War I had not been fought on any U.S.territory. Americans read the reports, but they seemed far away.

Very few persons who were old enough possibly to understand that world of 1937 are alive today. The fewwho are alive are at least 95 years old.

Of course, the world has been altered much beyond itscircumstances in 1937. A second world war was fought, andfollowing it, a “cold” war,, with the two ending fascism andcommunism. A series of smaller wars or skirmishes havefollowed between newer political forces. The precedent foran attack on U.S. soil at Pearl Harbor was followed 60 yearslater by September 11 in New York City and Washington, DC.

China and India now each have populations of 1.3 billionpersons. They have growing economies and technologicalcapabilities. Europe was the site of a post World War IIrecovery and boom as it created an economic union, but thatcycle seems to have been relatively short-lived as attempts toimpose a more political union have collapsed into old and new
religious, ethnic and cultural conflicts. The U.S. which emerged as the dominant world economic and military power after World War II and the Cold War has reached limits to its powers, and with only a population of 300 million, apparent caps on its
economic hegemony in the long term.

The totalitarian innovations of the 20th century are no more,but new totalitarian forces, which are as old as human historyitself, have not surprisingly reappeared.

A thoughtful and educated young man or woman living in theU.S. in 1937 might have sensed something very big and terriblewas coming, but how could they have imagined what actuallydid happen?

I’m old now, but I wonder what the young men and young women of today, those under 20 years old, for example, are thinking about what they see and hear and read about what’shappening in the world today --- their world and what it mightbecome.

I have long wondered what it would have been like to be a youngperson in 1937, but I could not really understand it in spite of allthat we all know has transpired since that time.

Saturday, December 5, 2015

THE IOWA CAUCUS ANDNEW HAMPSHIRE PRIMARY HEAT UPThe presidential campaigns in both major parties are movingout of low gear in the two states which will vote earliest nextyear. Until now, most of the candidates have relied on free mediaand the televised debates to promote their causes, but both Iowaand New Hampshire traditionally require “retail” campaigningby the candidates themselves with shaking hands, local appearances, and town meetings. Success in polling until now has been precipitated by name recognition and news media coverage. Already a certain volatility in polling has been provoked by thosecampaigns whose candidates are both showing up and effective.TV, cable and radio advertising also now begins in earnest, andas initiated in 2008 and 2012, nomination campaigns are relying more and more on social media and GOTV technology. This is also the time when campaign cash, strategy and organization begin to count more and more.

FOREIGN POLICY TO COUNT MORE IN 2016?Events in the world and domestic terrorist threats are enablingforeign policy and security issues to become much more importantin the presidential election than is traditional. Perhaps not since1956 when a takeover of the Suez Canal by the British and French,and the Soviet invasion of Hungary, occurred just before the election, will foreign policy issues play such an important role inthe voting.

NOT SO SAFE SEATS?It always happens that just before the national elections, certainU.S. house and U.S. senate seats, earlier thought completely “safe,”become surprisingly competitive. This naturally occurs when thereare unexpected vacancies and surprise retirements, but oftenincumbent gaffes and political blunders enable this to happen.Although it seems extremely unlikely that Republicans would losecontrol of the U.S. house, conventional wisdom about senate seatscould be upended by unpredicted circumstances. In any event,six to none months from now, the list of “safe” Republican andDemocratic incumbents is likely to change.

CHRISTIE’S TURNLatest polls from New Hampshire show New Jersey Governor ChrisChristie rising to double digits and fourth place among his rivals.Mr. Christie’s rebound is no accident; he has been campaigningheavily in the first-in-the-nation primary state, appearing at townmeetings and performing “retail” politics. His favorables are nowthe highest among GOP candidates in the state.The governor has
just opened a campaign office in Iowa where his poll numbers have also previously been low. He is now almost certain to be back on
the stage at the next main Republican debate. Three other GOPcandidates also have made recent gains, including Donald Trump,Florida Senator Marco Rubio and Texas Senator Ted Cruz.

Thursday, December 3, 2015

The term “Minnewisowa” as a political megastate made its first appearance during the presidential election of 2004 in an op ed I wrote then in The Washington Times. It was the re-election year for President George W. Bush,and the race was going to be close. Living in the prairiestate of Minnesota, after growing up in Pennsylvania, andattending graduate school in Iowa, I had become awarehow similar in many important ways were the tangentialstates of Minnesota, Wisconsin and Iowa. I often make up new words, so Minne-wis-owa was a natural.

With 26 electoral votes, Minnewisowa is a battlegroundpowerhouse in a nation where an increasing number ofstates had become predictably and almost inevitably “blue”or “red.” Recently, the three states had leaned “blue”(Democratic), but by 2004,, they appeared to be up for grabs. Iowa, in fact, went for Bush in 2004, and Wisconsinwas very close. Later, in the Obama years, Minnewisowareturned to blue, but once again in 2016, these statesappear to be competitive.

A recent Survey USA poll in Minnesota surprised most observers with its results that showed Democratic frontrunner Hillary Clinton trailing most of the leading Republican presidential candidates. Dr. Steven Schier at Carleton College, one of the most impartial and acuteobservers of Minnesota politics, wrote that the poll mightbe slightly overestimating the GOP turnout, but even if that is true, Minnesota is unexpectedly competitive. Mostobservers would agree that Iowa and Wisconsin are lessblue on paper than Minnesota, and there are indications thateach of these states could also be presidential battlegrounds.

Minnesota and Wisconsin particularly usually have heavierDemocratic turnouts in presidential years, but Mrs. Clintondoes not seem, as elsewhere, to be generating very much enthusiasm so far. Both Wisconsin, with its historically socialist enclaves (in Milwaukee and Madison) and Minnesota with its traditional populist enclaves (Minneapolis, St Paul and the northeastern “Range”) show some significant support for Vermont’s Bernie Sanders.

In the end, barring the unforeseen, virtually all Democrats inthese states will vote for Hillary Clinton if she is her party’snominee. Mr. Obama, however, generated exceptional turnout in the black and other minority communities, andamong independent voters (about 25-30% of the total vote).95% of an 80% turnout, it must be remembered is not the same as 95% of a 60% turnout. Unless Mrs. Clinton canchange her public perception in the next ten months, shecould lose all or part of Minnewisowa. Just do the numbers.

Of course, the eventual Republican nominee is very importantin this electoral equation. A GOP ticket unacceptable to regular conservative voters could keep them home, or evenmake them hold their nose and vote for another ticket. Thecurrent state of the GOP nomination contest reveals thispossibility.

Iowa, as the first state to vote in the caucus/primary season, has already drawn considerable candidate visits and attention.With Governor Scott Walker now withdrawn as a presidentialcandidate, Wisconsin will increasingly draw candidates whenthey are in the Minnewisowa neighborhood. Most candidatesnow already quietly come to Minnesota for fundraising. The Gopher State has no statewide races in 2016, and lots of liberal and conservative millionaires who can and do contribute to campaign war chests.

In 2004, Minnwisowa was a battleground megastate. In 2008 and2012, it was much less so. But in 2016, with the initial advantageto the Republicans because of “Obama fatigue” and the unusuallack of enthusiasm for Hillary Clinton, Minnewisowa could bedecisive in an election now shaping up to be hard-fought,historic and close.

Search This Blog

About Barry Casselman

BARRY CASSELMAN is an author, journalist and lecturer who has reported and analyzed American presidential and national politics since 1972.

He founded, edited and published his first newspaper when he was 29. He has been a contributor to many national publications, including The Weekly Standard, realclearpolitics.com, Politico, Roll Call, Washington Examiner, The American Interest, Utne Reader, Campaigns and Elections Magazine, American Experiment Quarterly, Washington Times, The Rothenberg Political Report, Business Today, Election Politics, Business Ethics Magazine, San Francisco Examiner, Washington Insider, and American Commonwealth.

His regular op ed columns and other commentary in print, and on the internet, are distributed through the Preludium News Service. His blog ‘The Prairie Editor” has an international readership and appears on his website at www.barrycasselman.com .

He was a political analyst for WCCO-AM (CBS) for several years, for KSJN-AM (Public Radio International), and for KUOM-AM (National Public Radio). He has also broadcast on RAE in Buenos Aires, Argentina, and beginning in 2000, he produced and broadcast for Voice of America. In 2006, he presented news commentary on LBC, the independent 24-hour news radio network in London, England. He also provided election night analysis in 2006 for Minnesota Public Radio. In 2008, he returned to WCCO-AM for periodic national election commentary. Beginning in 2011, he began weekly commentary on the 2012 presidential campaign on a national radio podcast program originating in Dallas, TX.

Casselman was the original host of “Talk To Your City” on the Minneapolis Television Network, and was a frequent political commentator for KTCA-TV (PBS). In 1992 and 1994, he presented election night analysis for the Conus coast-to-coast All News Channel. In 1996, he provided live coverage from the presidential primaries in Iowa and New Hampshire for All News Channel nationwide. He has also appeared on C-SPAN. In 2008, he was interviewed by ABC-TV Evening News with Charles Gibson.

He has covered national presidential primaries, caucuses and straw polls since 1976, and attended Democratic and Republican national conventions since 1988. He has traveled throughout the United States to report on significant political events, including the national congressional debate in Williamsburg in 1996, the presidential debates, national conventions and events of the Democratic Leadership Council, Democratic National Committee, Republican National Committee, United We Stand America, Reform Party, National Governors Association, NAACP, AFL-CIO, Christian Coalition, CPAC, Green Party and the Independence Party.

In 2012, he was invited to be a civilian participant in the 58th annual seminar on national security at the U.S. Army War College in Carlisle, PA. Also in 2012, he was a speaker at the Jefferson Educational Society's Global Summit IV. At that event, he received the Thomas Hagen "Dignitas" Award for lifetime achievement.

From 1990-2011, he was the executive director of the non-profit International Conference Foundation, and hosted more than 500 world leaders, foreign journalists and other international visitors. At the non-partisan Foundation, he also organized four national symposia: the first on low-income housing with then-HUD Secretary Jack Kemp; the second, a highly-acclaimed conference on “Locating the New Political Center in America” with Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich and leading spokespersons of the Clinton administration as well as newly-emerged independent groups; the third, a symposium on public communications with then-Governor Tom Ridge, former White House press secretary Mike McCurry, Tony Blankley and other national figures; and in 2003, a symposium on homeland security with Secretary Ridge and leading local and national experts. During this time, he also organized numerous smaller conferences, tours and events for the U.S. Information Agency and the U.S. Department of State for its International Visitor Program and its Foreign Press Center programs. In 2008, he organized a special program for international media and visitors attending the Republican National Convention in St. Paul. The Foundation also sponsored programs presenting domestic and international authors and their books.

In 2007, Mr. Casselman helped create and plan the nationally-broadcast and podcast dialogue between former New York Governor Mario Cuomo and former U.S. Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich at the Cooper Union in New York City, and he continued to work on related debate and public policy discussion projects in the 2008 and 2012 presidential campaigns.

Mr. Casselman has been a lecturer on public policy at Princeton University’s annual international business conferences in New York, and its regional conferences in Chicago since 2005; He also has been a guest lecturer at George Washington University, Carleton College, The Chautauqua (NY) Institution, Gannon University, Hubert Humphrey Institute of Public Affairs, Santa Barbara City College, University of St. Thomas, Metropolitan State University, Augsburg College, University of Minnesota, Jefferson Educational Society, and on the international voyages of the Queen Elizabeth 2, Sagafjord, Vistafjord and Royal Viking Sun. He has made presentations on journalism and the arts at Carleton College, University of Minnesota, College of St. Catherine, Minneapolis College of Art and Design, Walker Art Center, Metropolitan State University, Mercyhurst College and the Brazilian Writers Union in Sao Paulo, Brazil.

His non-fiction book North Star Rising was published in 2007 by Pogo Press, an imprint of Finney Company. In 2008, Pogo Press published Minnesota Souvenir, Casselman’s history and visitor guide for the 2008 Republican National Convention in St. Paul. He was editor and co-author of the book Taking Turns: Political Stalemate or a New Direction in the Race for 2012, a preview of that year's national election.

He has been cited in Michael Barone’s Almanac of American Politics and in William Safire’s Political Dictionary. Casselman has invented a number of political words and phrases which are now in frequent usage, and listed in various online dictionaries.

He is also a widely-published American poet, short story writer and playwright whose work has been translated and published in Europe, South America and Asia. He is the author of four published books of literary prose and poetry. His work has been frequently anthologized. Two of his plays, in collaboration with composer Randall Davidson, have been performed by the Actors Theater of St. Paul, Minnesota Orchestra, St. Donat’s Ensemble of Wales, and by independent productions at the Union Depot in St. Paul and the Foss Theater at Augsburg College in Minneapolis. He has provided original texts for two award-winning experimental films, as well as texts for other independent short films and videos.

Barry Casselman was born in Erie, Pennsylvania. He received his B.A. with major honors from the University of Pennsylvania and his M.F.A. at the Writers Workshop at the University of Iowa. He has also studied in Paris, and attended the University of Madrid. He now lives in Minneapolis.